You may not know it, but senators of both parties are still engaging in vigorous and open debate with one another on how to address such top-line issues as inflation and the economy, gun control, recent landmark Supreme Court decisions and the southern border.
They’re doing so, however, not within the Senate but in forums and discussions outside of the Capitol that collectively strive to promote constructive debates while also looking for solutions. The question is whether these forums will encourage the Senate and House to return to the days of vigorous debate that nourished compromise and policy achievement — rather than continue down the path of growing political polarization that only produces more gridlock.
The quality, if not survival, of our democracy may turn on the answer.
As senators of different parties from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, and as party leaders for part of that time, we’re worried that today’s Senate offers far less opportunity for the kind of serious debate in which we participated and were proud to schedule for the Senate floor. America’s founders created the Senate to serve as an institution of serious engagement. With terms that would last six years, senators could take a more deliberative approach to legislation than House members, who faced reelection every two years. The Senate would, as George Washington supposedly told Thomas Jefferson, “cool” House legislation like a saucer cools hot tea.
The Senate has housed historic debates on slavery in the early 19th century, Andrew Johnson’s impeachment after the Civil War, civil rights in the 1960s, the Persian Gulf War of 1991, and other hot-button issues.
The Senate is far different today — not just polarized but, oftentimes, mean. Many senators often stake out strident positions on cable TV and Twitter, playing to their bases that, in turn, come to view compromise as capitulation. The more that senators deliver talking points, the less they engage directly with one another and the less flexibility they afford themselves to find common ground with one another.
Senate and House members also spend less time in Washington. Many choose not to move their families to the area, so they rush home every week once the legislative work is done. With fewer opportunities to get to know one another at family barbeques and other social activities, lawmakers become not colleagues but strangers — and thus easier to oppose, if not demonize.
All is not lost, however. As the discussions cited above show, at least some senators share a deep-seated desire for the vigorous debate and serious engagement that lays the groundwork for policy achievement. We believe the Senate and House can take their own steps to incentivize debate.
First, the Senate should return to old norms for considering legislation. Filibusters, which date back to America’s earliest days, grew more common in the 19th and 20th centuries, prompting the Senate to adopt rules to end debate by “invoking cloture,” which now requires 60 votes. While cloture votes were rare for most of our history, the assumption in the Senate now is that virtually all legislation will require a cloture vote, giving Senate minorities enormous power to block action.
Second, the Senate and House should restore “regular order” for developing legislation. We would welcome reinvigorating the process of developing legislation through subcommittee and committee hearings and “markup” (drafting) sessions, followed by floor debates. It is historically how bipartisan legislation has successfully been created.
Third, we need to recreate more venues for constructive communication between parties. Joint caucus meetings, bipartisan discussions with congressional leadership in the White House, and more social events involving senators, House members and their spouses have all been shown to be catalytic to better relations. How nice it would be to see more of them now.
We’re not naïve about the hurdles to reducing polarization and increasing bipartisan engagement. We also recognize that the parties have real policy differences, and each party has a legitimate desire to gain majority control.
Still, lawmakers should understand that growing polarization is weakening the foundation of our democracy — and that democracy’s vitality is far more important than the talking points of any particular day.
Tom Daschle is cofounder of the Bipartisan Policy Center. He was a Democratic senator from South Dakota from 1987 to 2005 and served as the majority leader. Trent Lott, senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, is also a former Senate majority leader, was a Republican senator from Mississippi from 1989 to 2007.